Skip to main content

Full text of "Legislation against Political Clubs during the Republic"

See other formats


STOP 



Early Journal Content on JSTOR, Free to Anyone in the World 

This article is one of nearly 500,000 scholarly works digitized and made freely available to everyone in 
the world by JSTOR. 

Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other 
writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the 
mid-seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries. 

We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this 
resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non-commercial 
purposes. 

Read more about Early Journal Content at http://about.jstor.org/participate-jstor/individuals/early- 
journal-content . 



JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people 
discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching 
platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not-for-profit 
organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please 
contact support@jstor.org. 



THE CLASSICAL WEEKLY 



11 



is childish in kind, or was he the man to waste himself, 
like Plato, upon music, geometry, mathematics and 
astronomy, which not only start from false assumptions 
and so cannot be true, but if they were true would not 
aid us one whit towards living a more agreeable, 
that is a better life; was he, I ask, the man to pursue 
those arts and thrust behind him the art of living, 
an art of such moment, so laborious too, and correspond- 
ingly rich in fruit ? 

How could the man who translated so well in 1883 
write such an unsatisfactory commentary and punctu- 
ate so badly in his edition of the Pro Archia in 1891? 

A study of the passages quoted in this paper will 
show how thoroughly the Romans — Cicero at least — 
were masters of this highly effective bit of rhetoric. 
As evidences of that mastery we may recapitulate 
here the use of non or nonne in the second member, 
in varying ways, the setting of at least three sentences 
of this type side by side in Pro Balbo 54 (with the 
separation of two of them by anne), the use of non. . . 
sed in both members, in Tusc. 5. 104, the varying tenses 
in different examples, and, finally, the use of even the 
conditional subjunctive in De Finitus 1.72 (with the 
resumption there of the whole first member through 
ergo). 

The passage cited above from the De Finibus, 
ending as it does with a resumptive ergo-clause, which 
gathers up and repeats the contents of the on-clause, 
makes one think of such a passage as Cicero Tusc. 1.31 : 

Ergo arbores seret diligens agricola, quarum adspiciet 
bacam ipse numquam, vir magnus leges, instituta, 
rem publicam non seret? 

Is, then, the thrifty husbandman to plant trees 
whose fruit he will never himself see, (and) the great 
man not to plant laws, institutions, the common- 
wealth ? 

Here for ergo we might substitute an. It is worth 
while to note that Meissner, who has a fine note on this 
idiom, puts a colon after numquam. C. K. 



LEGISLATION AGAINST POLITICAL CLUBS 
DURING THE REPUBLIC 1 

The special object of the Lex Licinia De Sodaliciis 
was to put an end to the existence of political clubs. 
Unions of citizens for various purposes had been com- 
mon almost from the foundation of the city. Trades- 



!Bibliography: 

Mommsen, De Collegiis et Sodaliciis Romanorum. Kiel, 1843. 

Colin, Zum Romischen Vereitiswesen. Berlin, 1873. 

Liebenam, Zur Geschichte und Organisation des Romischen 
Vereinswesen._ Leipzig, 1890. 

Waltzing, Etude historique sur les corporations professionelles 
chez les Romains. Louvain, i8g.s. 

Weismann, De Divisoribus et Sequestribus, Ambitus apud 
Romanos Instrumentis. Heidelberg, 1831. 

Pernice, M. Antistius Labeo. Halle, 1873. 

Labatut, La corruption electorale chez les Romains. Paris, 1876. 

De Marchi, II culto privato di Roma antica. Milano. 1903. 

Bloch, Le Praefectus Fabrum. Louvain, 1905. 

Rein, Criminalrecht, 714-719. 

Zumpt, Criminalrecht, 11. 2.367-404. 

Zumpt, Criminalprocess, 545-547- 

Lange, Alterthumer, 1,716 . ff.; 3.340. 

Mommsen, Staatsrecht, 3.1181, etc. 

Mommsen, Strafrecht, 872 ff. 

Marquardt, Staatsverwaltung, 3.134 ff.; 204. 

Greenidge. Legal Procedure, 448 ff. 

Strachan-Davidson, Criminal Law, 2.95-m. 



unions, composed of the workmen in the different 
trades, were recognized in the time of the monarchy, 
and no effort was ever made to dissolve them, until 
they began to exert a political influence. Such unions 
were called collegia, and we hear of seven of them before 
the establishment of the Republic, which were under 
the protection of the State, if indeed the State did not 
take the initiative, as Plutarch intimates, in creating 
them. They included in their membership the workers 
in all the principal occupations in the city 2 . Persons 
holding the same office, as the pontiffs, the augurs, 
and the tribunes, formed collegia, and these also 
existed without criticism 5 . But in the last century 
of the Republic many of the collegia began to use their 
influence in a political way, and in the year 64 B. C. 
those that were thought to be inimical to the public 
welfare were all abolished. They were restored, 
however, by a measure proposed by Clodius, during his 
tribuneship in the year 58 B. C. 4 , with disastrous results 
to the regular working of the government. 

Unions of a second kind, composed of the worshippers 
of some divinity, were called sodalitates. We hear, 
for example, that a sodalitas of Mercuriales was 
created in 387 B. C, and that in 204, at the inaugura- 
tion of the worship of the Mater Magna, a special 
sodalitas of those who superintended her worship 
was formed 5 . Gaius asserts that sodalitates existed 
at the time of the XII Tables 6 , and some Roman 
scholars carried their foundation back as far as the 
age of Romulus 7 . With the introduction of new 
divinities their number constantly increased, and they 
were found in every part of the Empire. Ostensibly 
their chief function was to make offerings to a divinity 
at a particular temple, but perhaps the activity which 
created the most far-reaching consequences consisted 
in their holding banquets which fostered a close friend- 
ship among the. members. Since their duties centered 
in a special shrine rather than in the worship of a 
divinity generally, they were sometimes called collegia 
templorum, but never collegia deorum 8 . All of these 
created a much stronger bond among their members 
than the ordinary collegia did. In many respects 
they are comparable to the lodges of the present day. 
They had a kind of insurance, extending to the educa- 
tion of the children of deceased sodales. In a public 
way they were of service to their members, for a sodalis 
would not take legal action against a member of his 
sodalitas, but would aid him in his legal difficulties. 
This close relationship was guarded against in certain 
prohibitory clauses in the legislation of C. Gracchus. 
In one of the laws passed during his tribunate it was 



2 Plutarch, Numa 17. 

3 Livy 1.20, 2.27; Pliny, N. H. 18.2. *Cicero, Sest. 34. 

5 C. I. L.i 1 , page 206; Cicero ,Cato Maior 45 (Cato is sneaking) : 
Sodalitates autem me quaestore constitutae sunt, sacris Idaeis 
Magnae Matris acceptis. Epulabar igitur cum sodalibus; Gellius 
2. 24.2: Principes civitatis, qui ludis Megalensibus antiquo ritu 
mutitarent, id est mutua inter se convivia agitarent; C. I. L. 6.494: 
Matri deum et navi Salviae Q. Nunnius Telephus mag[ister] col- 
[legii] culto[rum] eius. 

6 Digest 47.22.4. 7 Tuditanus ap. Macrobium 1. 16.32. 

8 Digest 32.1.38.6. 



12 



THE CLASSICAL WEEKLY 



ordered that in cases of extortion no man could act as 
counsel or juryman provided the defendant in the case 
were a member of his sodalitas or collegium 9 . In 
the last century of the Republic they used their in- 
fluence as organizations in giving assistance to members 
in their candidacy for office 10 . This became so pro- 
nounced that many of them were abolished in 64, 
and others in 56 B. C. 

But the Romans drew no sharp distinction between 
collegia and sodalitates. Thus Gaius says that sodales 
are those who belong to the same collegium 11 , and even 
unions of those engaged in a particular occupation 
were sometimes called sodalitates 12 . Probably the 
nearest distinction to which the Romans adhered, 
and they were not consistent even in this, was that the 
sodalitates had for their object the cultivation of the 
worship of a particular divinity, while the word col- 
legium was a broader word, indicating no one object 
as against all others, but a union lasting for the period 
of the life of its members 13 . A sodalitas might be of 
short duration, but in general it was self -perpetuating, 
and lasted as long as the worship of a divinity lasted. 

A third form of union, and this is the one which 
became especially pernicious, was the temporary 
club formed for the express purpose of accomplishing 
some political end, or ends. Livy mentions one of 
these that was created in the year 314 B. C. to exert 
an influence on the elections of that year". They were 
usually only temporary organizations, having one 
definite object, and they probably disbanded as soon 
as that object was attained. They were a special 
kind of collegium, whose activity was almost, if not 
quite, confined to politics. Toward the end of the 
Republican period they became extremely numerous, 
formed as they were to meet some assumed emergency, 
such as a particularly close election, or some threatened, 
legislation. Quintus Cicero says that his brother 
belonged to several 15 , and Marcus Cicero himself 
speaks of groups, which he calls factiones, each created 
for one object alone 16 . Dio Cassius calls the first 
triumvirate, composed of Caesar, Pompey and Crassus, 
a union of this kind 17 . The more influential and some- 
what permanent of such political unions or clubs were 
put out of existence by the severity of Sulla's constitu- 
tion. But that condition did not last long, for very 
shortly thereafter we hear of corruption, caused by 
these organizations, more open and thorough-going 
than before. The collegia of the more eminent men, 
such as the priestly organizations, and the sodalitates, 

9 The Lex Acilia, v. 10, declared that one could not be a patronus 
or judex quei eiei (i. e. reo) sobrinus siet propiusve eum cognatione 
attigat queive eiei sodalis siet queive in eodem collegio siet. 

10 Cicero, Verr. 2.1.94; Mur. 56; De Orat. 2.200. 

"Digest 47.22.4: Sodales sunt, qui eiusdera collegii sunt, quam 
Graeci eraipetav vocant. 

W C. I. L. 6.9136 sodales aerarii; 9.5450 sodaHcium fullonum. 
Compare Orelli, 4098, 4103. 

13 Marquardt, 3.137; Mommsen, Coll. 5; Cicero, Brut. 166; 
Pro Sull. 7; Lex Acil. C. I. L. 1.198, vv. 9-10. 

"9.26. "De Pet. Cons. 5.19. "Ad Quintum Fratrem 3.1. 15. 

17 37-57: <rvfL<ppovri<T&vT(av 8^ ixflvujv koX rh tratpacA a<pwv 
(compare 38.13) ufio\6yrjiTav Kal &Troiovv koX ohrot juerd 
dSetas 8<ra ij0€\ov t 7jy€p.6(riv aiirois xp&fxevoi. 



gave systematic assistance to their members in winning 
elections. But even more corrupting than that was 
the readiness of the unions of artisans to sell their 
votes as organizations, and to cause violence in the 
conduct of elections. At the same time numerous 
organizations were created solely for the purpose of 
influencing public affairs, whether in elections or in 
legislation. These frequently took the name of 
collegia in order to conceal their real intentions 18 . 
These, Asconius says, received no public authorization, 
and were contrary tq the welfare of the state 19 . It is 
doubtful whether there was any power in the Republic 
that could have checked their activity, or controlled 
their formation, for it is exceedingly probable that the 
majority of candidates for office endeavored regularly 
to increase their political influence, or win elections, 
by forming organizations, or illegally approaching 
those already formed. So long as officials were ready 
to form clubs, and the voters were ready to sell their 
votes to them, legislation against the clubs must of 
necessity be useless. 

The recognized and long established collegia and 
sodalitates were placed in the category of juristic 
persons, at least to the extent that they could hold 
property and make contracts, provided they kept 
within the law as it applied to private citizens 20 . 
But the political clubs neither possessed, nor desired 
to possess, such privileges, for their wish was to conceal 
their influence, and even their existence. They com- 
monly avoided the name of collegia, but were some- 
times called sodalitates, or factiones, or still more 
frequently sodalicia 21 . It is a difficult question whether 
the names thus used applied to the common people, 
implying that they joined organizations, or was 
restricted to those men in higher positions who banded 
together to create organizations. The words are 
often used to denote only the men in higher positions, 
and apparently only the officers could be prosecuted 
for illegal acts, after there was legislation on the 
subject; so it seems that they alone were felt by the 
Romans to compose the temporary organizations, 
and there is no indication that the people who allowed 
themselves to be used in this way were regarded as 
guilty in any respect. 

Another question which has been much debated 
is whether the various unions, collegia and sodalitates, 
required authorization or permission by the State in 
order that their existence might be legal. If the State 

1B Suetonius, Aug. 32: plurimae factiones titulo collegii novi ad 
nullius non facinoris societatem coibant. Compare Cicero, In 
Cornel. 66; Asconius in Orat. in Cornel. 67; Waltzing. 1.48. 

19 Asconius in Cornel, p. 75 (speaking of conditions in the year 65) : 
frequentes turn etiam coetus factiosorum hominum sine publica 
auctoritate malo publico fiebant. 

20 Gaius, Digest 47.22.4: Sodalibus potestatem facit lex (XII 
tabulae) pactionem quam velint sibi ferre, dum ne quid ex publica 
lege corrumpant; Digest 38.2.14: ius publicum pactis privatorum 
mutari non posse. 

HDe Pet. Cons. 19;. Cicero, Ad Q. Fr. 2.3.5; Plane. 36, 47; 
Frag, in Vat. : audacissimus de factione (factio = first triumvirate) ; 
Marcian, Digest 47.22.1 pr.: collegia sodalicia. From this expres- 
sion of Marcian it is clear that the word sodalicia was an adjective, 
and signifies something that encouraged the close relationship of 
the sodalitates. But the combination used by Marcian does not 
occur in classical Latin. 



THE CLASSICAL WEEKLY 



13 



demanded such authorization, then all organizations 
that did not seek and obtain it would be illegal from 
the outset. Or, if that was the case, it might be truer 
to say that the unrecognized organizations could not 
expect support from the State in the event of their 
wishing to enforce contracts, or legally take possession 
of property. It is thought, on the authority of Plutarch, 
that Numa was responsible for the creation of the first 
organizations of artisans. They seem to have been 
under the protection of the State during the whole 
period of the kings. It is said that Tarquinius Super- 
bus forbade religious associations both in the city and 
in the country districts, on account of their attempted 
interference in politics, but there is nothing to show 
that he in any way endeavored to restrict either the 
formation or the continued existence of the collegia 
of artisans. Nor is there proof of the enactment 
of any law during the Republican period restricting 
the existence or activity of associations, until the last 
years before the civil wars. Two laws were cited 
by Porcius Latro as bearing on the subject, but they 
cannot be considered relevant to it. He cites the XII 
Tables, to the effect that meetings by night were for- 
bidden, and the Gabinian Law, that no secret gather- 
ings should be held in the city 22 . Nor does the. law 
cited by Gaius from the XII Tables indicate that there 
was any necessity for authorization. The view that 
there was no such necessity has found almost universal 
acceptance 23 , but it should be pointed out that there 
is some slight indication of necessity in the speech of 
Postumius, consul in 186 B. C, on the occasion of 
the suppression of the Bacchanals 24 . But that evidence 
is not sufficient to warrant such an assumption, for 
Postumius was not speaking of the meetings of such 
organizations as these. It seems clear, therefore, 
that any club could be formed -without seeking State 
recognition, nor was its existence illegal, until made so 
by positive enactment on the subject. 

The first restrictive enactment was a senatus consul- 
turn passed in 64 B. C. This bill is mentioned expli- 
citly twice by Asconius. In one passage he speaks of 
the rise of factiones about the time when Cicero de- 
livered his speech for Cornelius, in the year 65, saying 
that afterward the unions were abolished, except a few 
collegia, such as those of artisans, which were felt to 
be useful to the State 25 . In the other passage he adds 
that the Ludi Compitalicii were abolished at the same 
time. This took place in the consulship of L. Iulius 
Caesar and C. Marcius Figulus. But the collegia were 



^Decl. in Cat. 19: primum XII tab. cautum esse cojposcimus, 
ne qui in urbe coetus noctumos agitaret, deinde lege Gabinia promul- 
gatum, qui coitiones ullas clandestinas in urbe conflaverit, more 
maiorum capitali supplicio multetur. 

BE. g. by Mommsen. Coll. 36; Liebenam, 17; Waltzing, 1.79; 
etc. 

^Livy 39-15: Maiores vestri ne vos quidem, nisi cum aut 
vexillo in arce posito comitiorum causa exercitus eductus esset . . . 
forte temere coire voluerunt; et ubicunque multitudo esset, ibi et 
legitimum rectorem multitudinis censebant debere esse. Cohn, 
35, accepts this as sufficient evidence. 

M Asconius in Cornel, p. 75: postea collegia senatus consulto et 
pluribus legibus sunt sublata praeter pauca atque quae utilitas 
civitatis desiderasset quasi ut fabrorum fictorumque (Stangl reads 
lictorumque) . 



restored by a law of Clodius at the end of 59 B. C. M . 
Here a difficulty arises, for Asconius says that the 
collegia were restored by Clodius nine years after their 
abolition by the Senate. If this is true, the enact- 
ment of the Senate must be dated in 68 B. C, and the 
names of the consuls must be changed to L. Caecilius 
Metellus and Q. Marcius Rex in the note of Asconius 27 , 
as well as in the text of Cicero 2 ". But that would 
conflict with the statement of Asconius that the col- 
legia were springing into great prominence in the year 
65, which would be only three years after the enact- 
ment for their suppression, so that it would be much 
better to change novem to quinque in the text of Asconius 
than to make the greater change in the names of the 
consuls, and at the same time to convict Asconius of a 
serious contradiction in his two statements. 

It is not easy to decide upon the extent to which the 
Senate wished its measure to apply to the various 
organizations. Asconius says that the Ludi Compitali- 
cii were abolished. This was clearly no part of an 
enactment directed against collegia explicitly and by 
name, but it implies that these games had been used 
by ambitious politicians as an occasion for canvassing 
for votes, or seeking to extend their influence. They 
may also have given an opportunity for violence in the 
streets. For these reasons the Senate would feel it 
necessary to abolish them 29 . But the language of 
Asconius indicates rather definitely that all collegia, 
with a very few exceptions, were abolished. In order 
to understand this it is necessary to endeavor to find 
an acceptable definition for the word collegium, and 
that is difficult, for the word does not seem to have 
been very clearly defined by the Romans themselves 
at this time. Asconius says that many organizations 
had arisen 'without public authorization', but evi- 
dently he is using an expression applicable to his 
own day rather than to the Republican period, for in 
the Imperial times it was necessary to secure authoriza- 
tion in order to render the existence of the organiza- 
tions legal 80 . Upon the basis of this statement, 
Dirksen claims that collegia in the statement of Asconius 
means collegia illicila, but that cannot possibly be 
correct unless we should assume that authorization 
was necessary during the Republic. Zumpt is of the 
opinion that the word was intended to include only 
political clubs, but that is much too narrow, for it 
implies that it must be proved that a club, established 
ostensibly for other purposes, had participated unduly 



^Asconius in Pison. .6-7: L. lulio C. Marcio consulibus, quos 
et ipse Cicero supra memoravit, senatus consulto collegia sublata 
sunt quae adversus rem publicam videbantur esse .... Solebant 
autem magistri collegiorum ludos facere, sicut magistri vicorum 
faciebant, Compitalicios praetextati, qui ludi sublatis collegiis 
discussi sunt. Post novem deinde annos quam sublata erant P. 
Clodius tribunus plebis lege lata restituit collegia. Compare Dio 
Cassius, 38, 13. 

* 7 This is done by Cohn, 40, 51-55; Pernice, 301; and Gaudenzi, 
Sui collegi degli artigiani in Roma (Archivio Giuridico, 1884, 37-38). 

!8 In Pis. 8. 

"Waltzing. 1.93; Mommsen, Staatsr., 3.1181, Anm. 1; Willems, 
Senat, 2. 115, nn. 1, 4, 116, 326. 

30T Jlpian in Digest 47.22.2: Quisquis illicitum collegium usur- 
paverit, ea poena tenetur, qua tenentur, qui hominibus armatis loca 
publica vel templa occupasse iudicati sunt. 



14 



THE CLASSICAL WEEKLY 



in political affairs, before its abolition could legally be 
effected. But it is impossible to believe that the Senate 
undertook such a stupendous task as the investigation 
of the conditions existing in each organization. Had 
it done so, we should have much information in ancient 
writers on a matter of so great importance. A third 
explanation, offered by Cohn, is that the word col- 
legium means a legal club, formed for religious pur- 
poses, and that the collegia abolished at this time 
were those that had previously received authoriza- 
tion. But this also becomes impossible in view 
of the fact that no authorization was required for 
any of them. On the whole, it seems best to adopt 
the broadest definition of the word, and to hold with 
Waltzing that the associations suppressed by the 
Senate all bore the name of collegia, that many of them 
were old, that all were animated by factional tendencies, 
that they had many different forms, but that it was 
not intended to include the collegia of the priests 
or of the Capitolini, or certain associations of artisans. 
This' definition of the word covers sodalitates and the 
political clubs, which masqueraded under the more 
dignified title of collegia, although the Romans would 
not normally expect to give that name to these tem- 
porary organizations. This is the conclusion reached 
also by Liebenam. 

The senatorial decree was probably obeyed for 
four or five years; at any rate nothing is said about 
the associations, either favorable or unfavorable, until 
the year 59. In this year Piso was elected consul for 58, 
and granted permission for the celebration of the Ludi 
Compitalicii on January 1, 58". He was clearly 
under the influence of Clodius and other demagogues 
in giving his consent to this violation of the law. 
One of the first things done by Clodius after his assump- 
tion of the tribuneship on December 10, 58, was to 
legalize the existence of clubs, by carrying a measure 
recognizing those already formed, and permitting the 
formation of many new ones. Indeed he seems to 
have participated actively in creating them, and especi- 
ally the collegia compitalicia, or neighborhood clubs 32 . 
Asconius tells us that immediately there arose much 
greater political activity among the lowest classes 33 . 
The sodalicia became more numerous than ever 
before, and were a serious menace to the orderly 
conduct of public business 34 . It is a curious fact that 
nothing further is said of the sodalicia during the next 
two years. It is scarcely possible that they were 
inactive, but they may have been particularly on guard 
against the crisis which everybody foresaw must soon 
come. The later references to them all relate to their 
activity during the year of the tribuneship of Clodius. 
Nevertheless they were probably active as usual in 
these years, but by accident we do not happen to hear 
of them. This alone will explain the fact that the 



Senate found it necessary in 56 to pass a resolution 
restrictive in its nature. Clodius had permitted the 
existence of all collegia; the Senate prohibited those 
whose members were enrolled into decuries, that is to 
say, the Senate took the point of view that these 
unions were a menace in proportion to their degree of 
organization. Cicero complains that Clodius enrolled 
slaves into sodalitates 35 ; that was probably forbidden 
by the decree of the Senate, or at least unions must 
have been prohibited which were composed of a mixture 
of slaves and freemen. 

(To be continued) 
Dartmouth College. R. W. Husband. 



REVIEWS 



"Cicero, In Pis. 8. * ! Dio Cassias, 38. 13. 
M Asconius in Pison, 8. 

"Cicero, Sest. 34, 55; De Domo 13. S4; Pis. 11, 23; Post Red. 
in Sen. 33. 



Introduction to Latin. By John Copeland Kirtland 
and George Benjamin Rogers. New York: The 
Macmillan Company (1914). Pp. xvi-f" 261. $.85. 
This book, like nearly all contemporaneous begin- 
ners' books, is a modification of the old 'gramma- 
tical method', first, in that the amount of grammatical 
material to be learned is greatly reduced, and, secondly, 
in the way in which this material is administered, 
namely, in small 'doses' and with graded exercises in 
reading and writing Latin as an accompaniment of 
each dose. The authors are more radical in their 
treatment of syntax, which is taught not by rules, 
but only in the form of explanations following the 
Latin-English exercises, because the authors believe 
that "syntax can be firmly grasped only through 
reading". However, Rules of Syntax are given in the 
back of the book for those who wish them. 

One might expect that the same order would be 
followed in presenting the facts of grammar, and for 
the same reason. On the contrary paradigms are given 
for the most part only in the Conspectus of Inflections 
at the back of the book, because the authors believe 
that a presentation in detached groups "separates 
forms that properly go together, and make less effective 
use of the principle of association". Their practice, 
therefore, is to refer the pupil to this Conspectus for 
any set of forms which are to be learned and used in a 
given lesson. Some slight modification of this plan, 
however, evidently seemed necessary, for in the first 
lesson there is given the present indicative active of 
amo with English meaning, which, with eight verbs 
of the same conjugation given in the lesson vocabulary, 
the pupils are asked to learn to inflect, before they 
come to the Latin exercises consisting of isolated 
verb forms and a few unconnected sentences. In this 
and the next lesson no declensions are given and only 
the nominatives (singular and plural) of several first 
declension nouns are used. The first declension model 
sagitta, with meanings, is given in complete form in 
Lesson III. The use of the genitive is first found in 
Lesson VI, that of the dative in VII. Again, the 

35 Post Red. in Sen. 33 : servos simulatione collegiorum nominatim 
esse conscriptos.